When I said that atheists are ignorant of certain portions of history, while at the same time acknowledging these portions of history as being outside of infallible knowledge, I was simply using the term colloquially. All I am getting at is, you guys don't understand the concepts behind these movements.

When I said that atheists are ignorant of certain portions of history, while at the same time acknowledging these portions of history as being outside of infallible knowledge, I was simply using the term colloquially. All I am getting at is, you guys don't understand the concepts behind these movements.

Induction fallacy. How do you know that we're not actually typing in another language that resembles English exactly except for the meaning of the words we're using? How do you know that "social Darwinism" really exists and isn't simply something you came up with? How do you know we're not AI's? How do you know our keyboards are working properly? How do you know we exist?

Firstly and by way of summary, tangentials do not remove logical consubstantiality which is the fundamental flaw of your reply. You were not as insolent as most in this forum and so I thank you for challenging me without too much unnecessary rhetoric.

That doesn't fly. A tangent by definition is a digression from the main point (etymologically derived from the trig definition, a line which only touches a circle at one point). Yes, there is a logical connection between the tangent and the main point, but that does not mean the tangent is the same as the main point. This argument is a variation on the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, in that if you can state a logical connection between the main point and a tangent, therefore the tangent is the logical conclusion of the main point. The fact that you can make that connection does not prove that it is the logical conclusion, which is why it is a fallacy.

Quote from: Olivianus

Irrelevant. They were logically deduced from his theory and were therefore consubstantial with his theory. You can't escape it.

It is completely relevant. Darwin was proposing a scientific theory, not a philosophy or an ideology. The fact that some people have taken Darwin's theory of natural selection and turned it into a philosophical ideology ("Social Darwinism" and its offshoots) does not mean it is correct to conclude that the scientific theory of natural selection inescapably leads to the philosophical ideology of Social Darwinism.

Quote from: Olivianus

You showed no such thing. You showed emotional inconsistencies between Darwin and Social Darwinism. You did not show LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES.

The logical inconsistency is that this is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, as I stated above. Scientific theories do not inescapably lead to philosophical ideologies, although most people will inevitably use whatever reasoning (including scientific reasoning) they can to justify their philosophical ideologies. Such ideologies are in no way scientific, despite pretending that science supports them.

Quote from: Olivianus

This is hilarious. You think an emotional break proves a logical one.

No, I assumed you would recognize the fallacy you used without me having to spell it out for you. I have now corrected my mistake.

Quote from: Olivianus

But Protestantism removed itself from Rome's tyranny and religion and became separate moral persons. We rejected romanism. You need then to reject atheism.

Protestants rejected "romanism", therefore atheists need to reject atheism? The latter does not follow from the former. Furthermore, your conclusion that Catholicism is tyrannical in no way proves that Protestantism could not also become tyrannical, or did not already have inherent tyrannical principles. Perhaps you should look to the Pilgrims, who emigrated to America in order to seek religious freedom, only to subsequently begin practicing their own form of religious tyranny, exiling anyone who would not abide by it. And let us not forget the tyranny of the Salem witch trials, which came about as a direct result of the Puritan branch of Calvinism. Those are just two examples that I could think of off the top of my head. I'm quite sure I could find other atrocities committed by Protestants if I actually did some research.

Quote from: Olivianus

So you are suggesting that he believed in a god?

I am suggesting that describing him as an atheist is deceptive, given that he described himself as an immoralist and a nihilist, neither of which follow from atheism in any way. Atheism is only the non-belief in gods and what logically follows from it. Neither immorality nor nihilism does.

Quote from: Olivianus

Really? Can you describe a single uncreated object that the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchy offers to man's participation? Can you show me a single aspect of a Roman catholic's life where the normal functions of a god do not get dissolved into some visible administration of the RCC? If you cannot answer these questions you have admitted that there is nothing transcendent about this religion and it is a de facto atheism which would also remove me from the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

There is nothing transcendent about any religion, as nobody has ever been able to provide proof of transcendence. It is unreasonable to expect people to accept claims without proof to back them up. Therefore, it is immaterial whether or not there are aspects of Catholicism which Catholics would consider transcendent or not. This also means your assertion of transcendence in Protestantism is essentially special pleading, since you have no evidence for it.

Quote from: Olivianus

My personal view is that like many other Roman Catholics he terminated everything that a normal person attributes to his god to a visible administration of the Roman catholic hierarchy thus "it was the kind of atheism that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy (Which was the real undergirding force of the Nazi movement) relishes in and profits greatly from".

As your declaration that Catholicism was de facto atheism depended on its lack of transcendence, yet you cannot show evidence to prove Protestantism has transcendence, your personal view is incoherent. The only way to make it coherent is to show evidence of transcendence in Protestantism. And even then, it will still not be accurate; atheism is non-belief in gods, not belief in imaginary gods. A person who believes in an imaginary god is not an atheist.

Quote from: Olivianus

He gave you seven arguments.

Most of his "arguments" are incoherent criticism, dependent on accepting his viewpoint about Catholicism to gain any real validity whatsoever. The only one which is not is his statement that "No such language was found in any of his works!", and yet, his work Against the Sabbatarians to a good friend provides evidence of his emerging anti-Semitism. Furthermore, On the Shem Ha-Mephoras further confirms his anti-Semitism, referring to Jews, among other things, as "children of the Devil". And finally, Phelps depended on these criticisms to "prove" that On the Jews and Their Lies was a fraud, yet he apparently offers nothing but these criticisms to support his contention.

You claim it is standard history, you claim Phelps proved it, yet if I cited various things to contradict these assertions (such as the fact that this "history" is not taught in any school, the lack of evidence, the lack of writers commenting on something which is supposedly standard history), what would you say?

I notice you left out the part where it clearly says that what is physically in the cup is wine. Only a brain slave like an atheist or roman catholic would not see he is saying that the wine represents his blood which represents his life.

The funny thing about this is that “Passover” started with the Egyptians which used blood from the animal or person it wasn’t until the Jewish took over did it change, then again when the Christians or Catholics took it over once again. So how does this make any religion the one true religion when they just copied from each other?

Logged

“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Why do you believe the things you speak of historically actually happened? How do you know they did?

I have no reason to believe they didn't ...

You have no reason to believe they didn't? Really? That's not how I would have put it. I would have to have a reason to accept that they did happen. That's pretty sloppy way of approaching things isn't it?

A tangent by definition is a digression from the main point (etymologically derived from the trig definition, a line which only touches a circle at one point).

There are no such things as lines in the physical world so on your view they are not real. In order to demonstrate a line you are going to have to find two fixed points. Good luck with finding one.

Quote

Yes, there is a logical connection between the tangent and the main point, but that does not mean the tangent is the same as the main point.

Depends on your definition of objects of knowledge and reality. On my view persons are propositions. If a proposition can be logically deduced from some other proposition you think and believe that deduction is consubstantial with your person-hood.

Quote

The fact that you can make that connection does not prove that it is the logical conclusion, which is why it is a fallacy.

Hold on. Are you saying that a person can logically connect two propositions but the deduction not be logical? Prima facie it is nonsense. Just because someone was not intending to say something is irrelevant.

Quote

It is completely relevant. Darwin was proposing a scientific theory, not a philosophy or an ideology.

This is assumes a certain philosophy of reality. What is it? What is reality and what are your objects of knowledge (That which changes not during qualitative change)?Second, I am not making the argument that Darwin is wrong because of what it turned into, that takes care of the Reductio Ad Absurdum fallacy. What I am saying is that you cannot logically separate Eugenics from darwin's theory. It is the logical conclusion.

Quote

The logical inconsistency is that this is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, as I stated above.

If I stated that darwin's theory was wrong because of its consequences that would be a good argument. I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT.

Quote

Protestants rejected "romanism", therefore atheists need to reject atheism? The latter does not follow from the former.

You took the argument out of context. You tried to escape taking the responsibility for atheist massacres by an ad hominem argument that atheism can no more be blamed for stalin than religion can be blames for tyranny, I am guessing something like the inquisition. But you missed my point and maybe i can clarify it. WE DID BLAME ROME'S RELIGION FOR THEIR TYRANNY. So i reject your premise that a tyrant's religion cannot be blamed for his tyranny. It can and it should and we did.

Quote

Furthermore, your conclusion that Catholicism is tyrannical in no way proves that Protestantism could not also become tyrannical, or did not already have inherent tyrannical principles.

It doesn't. Can you provide any?

Quote

Perhaps you should look to the Pilgrims, who emigrated to America in order to seek religious freedom

Wrong. I have this conversation with my atheist father frequently. The pilgrim colonies were all theocracies under the guidance of John Cotton. They came to escape religious persecution, NOT, REPEAT NOT, theocracy.

Quote

only to subsequently begin practicing their own form of religious tyranny, exiling anyone who would not abide by it. And let us not forget the tyranny of the Salem witch trials, which came about as a direct result of the Puritan branch of Calvinism.

I praise them for their actions. They were right and good and their executions (fallible institutions of human government). The laws undergirding their actions were godly laws. The magistrate has obligation to eliminate witches and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers and heretics. Rutherford proves this in Free Disputation. This is not tyranny, this is virtue.

Quote

I am suggesting that describing him as an atheist is deceptive, given that he described himself as an immoralist and a nihilist, neither of which follow from atheism in any way. Atheism is only the non-belief in gods and what logically follows from it. Neither immorality nor nihilism does.

You have yet to prove he believed in a god.

Quote

There is nothing transcendent about any religion, as nobody has ever been able to provide proof of transcendence.

As your declaration that Catholicism was de facto atheism depended on its lack of transcendence, yet you cannot show evidence to prove Protestantism has transcendence, your personal view is incoherent.

I just did.

Quote

Most of his "arguments" are incoherent criticism, dependent on accepting his viewpoint about Catholicism to gain any real validity whatsoever.

Luther did attack the jews but that is not proof that he wrote that other book.

Quote

You claim it is standard history, you claim Phelps proved it, yet if I cited various things to contradict these assertions (such as the fact that this "history" is not taught in any school, the lack of evidence, the lack of writers commenting on something which is supposedly standard history), what would you say?

The same thing that ex-priests who were involved in things crimes and couldn't take it anymore: Our school system, and society in general if you are a fellow american, is dominated by Rome and has been for many years. Study jeremiah crowley. Rome loves secularism, because if you are an atheist you are not a protestant and that's the goal. The Elimination of Protestant Christianity. That is what the counter-reformation was all about.

Why do you believe the things you speak of historically actually happened? How do you know they did?

I have no reason to believe they didn't ...

You have no reason to believe they didn't? Really? That's not how I would have put it. I would have to have a reason to accept that they did happen. That's pretty sloppy way of approaching things isn't it?

There are no such things as lines in the physical world so on your view they are not real. In order to demonstrate a line you are going to have to find two fixed points. Good luck with finding one.

Finally something I make sense of. I never was comfortable with even as a kid. So if I ever teach Euclidean geometry, I will just tell the kids the infinite line is 10km long. Close enough for classroom work.

Oops, that was the fallacy of induction. From your posts I observed that a reply is either a wall of text Ctrl+C-ed from some website or embedded videos of appalling quality and predominantly irrelevant contents. So I figured that you are more tuned to such responses. My inference is wrong, the rights for video/copied text replies seems to be exclusive, I have to give you answers. Ahhh, cruel world.

The pages in the books mentioned does have an answer to your fourth point. Fortunately jaimehlers summarized it even more elegantly. Some of the people mentioned in that particular link have been atheists, but there is no evidence that any of the bad things done by them was due to their disbelief in a deity.

Quote

Your opinion is not an argument.

Fortunately that statement works both ways and it would be prudent of you refrain from making such statements. Just read your own posts and you will find what your "arguments" really were.

Now thats been said, it is indeed an argument. Your god, as mentioned in the book, had engineered a flood that destroyed the entire human population with a few exception, destroyed tribes and cities and takes sadistic pleasure in not only throwing billions of people into the lake of fire (hell) but also keeping them there for eternity.

I regret saying this, but compared to that god, I can make any known human being look like a boy scout.

Opinion presented with facts makes it an argument. If you stay in this forum long enough for this thread to be concluded, then we can start one on who is the most wicked character (real and fictional included)

Re: Four periods of history that atheists are usually ignorant of« Reply #10 on: Today at 08:35:13 PM »

Quote from: Gnu Ordure on Today at 04:51:40 PM

Switch:

Quote from: Switch?

You should be ashamed of yourself for peddling this pseudohistorical propaganda.

Agreed. We've heard this argument before, and it fails in two main ways:

1. It attributes the failings of totalitarianism to atheism. The fact is, not all atheists are totalitarians.

2. It fails to demonstrate that these specific totalitarians, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc, behaved the way the they did because of their atheism (or because of Darwin).

Whereas, the perpetrators of the Inquisition were clearly motivated by their religious beliefs.

May I return the shame to you. The fact that you would mention the inquisition to a Protestant Christian is so indicative of the utter ignorance of atheists, I am compelled to never reply to another post of yours again. Those people murdered and tortured millions of us and you push them in my face like I have some obligation to those monsters. On a side note, this encourages me because i am about to start a street crusade against atheism in my city and this makes me all the more confident that I will wipe every last stain of your bulls**t from my city. Logged

You are the most amazingly hypocritical lightweight scum.

You decry Gnu's use of very pertinent theistic behaviour as nothing to do with you because it was all "the catholic monsters", yet you want to tar all atheists with the same brush because of a position which you've fully failed to accredit to atheists in the first place.

And then you pronounce your own intent to undertake the very exact same behaviour that you are whinging about for which you describe the catholics as monsters.

Are you even capable of coherent thought you fuckwit?

Are you even slightly capable of the slightest self examination or awareness?

I fucking doubt it you ambulatory turd.

A heart of pus and your laughable faith in the sort of god that would include you as one of its chosen, are all one and the same reject tissue.

I have coughed up bronchial phlegm with more redeeming features than you.I have known parasitic infestations with more morality than the hypocrisy you display as virtue.

Threaten my friends will you?

I hope you fucking drown, thrashing desperately in that dose of self congratulatory diarrhetic you daily suck for nourishment and ideas.

......and as I have been told, to give abuse is a much less of a crime than warranting said abuse.

There are no such things as lines in the physical world so on your view they are not real. In order to demonstrate a line you are going to have to find two fixed points. Good luck with finding one.

I can easily plot two fixed points in a given frame of reference, therefore demonstrating a line. As long as the points do not move in the actual frame of reference, that is enough.

Quote from: Olivianus

Depends on your definition of objects of knowledge and reality. On my view persons are propositions. If a proposition can be logically deduced from some other proposition you think and believe that deduction is consubstantial with your person-hood.

This is incoherent, because you are arbitrarily redefining words when convenient to you in order to make your argument work. And as I said before, the fact that some proposition can be logically deduced from another proposition does not mean that the first proposition follows from the second. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy. And as for being consubstantial with a person, no. That depends solely on your argument that a person is a proposition, and you cannot logically prove that to anyone who does not already accept it. Therefore, it is a circular fallacy, as you must accept the premise in order to draw the conclusion which allows you to accept the premise.

Quote from: Olivianus

Hold on. Are you saying that a person can logically connect two propositions but the deduction not be logical? Prima facie it is nonsense. Just because someone was not intending to say something is irrelevant.

If A -> B when x > 1, and A -> C when x <= 1, and x = 2, then it does not matter that the connection from A -> C exists. It is not the logical conclusion unless you redefine the value of x. So, in this example, if Darwin's x-value is 2, and the x-value representing Social Darwinism is 1, it will never be a logical conclusion that Darwin would have espoused Social Darwinism. Note that I did not say the deduction was illogical, I said that it was not the logical conclusion.

Quote from: Olivianus

This is assumes a certain philosophy of reality. What is it? What is reality and what are your objects of knowledge (That which changes not during qualitative change)?Second, I am not making the argument that Darwin is wrong because of what it turned into, that takes care of the Reductio Ad Absurdum fallacy. What I am saying is that you cannot logically separate Eugenics from darwin's theory. It is the logical conclusion.

To answer the second point first, you are still declaring that eugenics is the logical conclusion of Darwin's theory. Therefore, you are still using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. There is a difference between something that can logically be concluded from another idea, and declaring that this thing is the only logical conclusion of that idea. There are other conclusions which are just as logical than "Darwin's theory -> eugenics".

Quote from: Olivianus

If I stated that darwin's theory was wrong because of its consequences that would be a good argument. I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT.

And I never said that your reductio ad absurdum fallacy was because of that strawman argument you just came up with. I said it was because you are declaring that eugenics is the logical conclusion of Darwin's theory, which implies there are no other conclusions worth mentioning. It is a logical conclusion for people who think a certain way, but that in no way makes it the logical conclusion.

Quote from: Olivianus

You took the argument out of context. You tried to escape taking the responsibility for atheist massacres by an ad hominem argument that atheism can no more be blamed for stalin than religion can be blames for tyranny, I am guessing something like the inquisition. But you missed my point and maybe i can clarify it. WE DID BLAME ROME'S RELIGION FOR THEIR TYRANNY. So i reject your premise that a tyrant's religion cannot be blamed for his tyranny. It can and it should and we did.

Oh, please. That was no ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument would have been if I rejected your argument because of some unrelated belief you had. As I did not, this is invalid.

As for your other point, it is completely incoherent and illogical, especially considering your previous statement about how Catholicism was actually de facto atheism. Furthermore, "we" did not. You did. You do not speak for other Protestants, and I highly doubt most of them would accept your premise about "Rome's tyranny". As for my point, it was rhetorical, because you are blaming an idea for the actions of a person, when in fact the person is responsible for their own actions. The idea does not make the person do things.

Quote from: Olivianus

It doesn't. Can you provide any?

Already did.

Quote from: Olivianus

Wrong. I have this conversation with my atheist father frequently. The pilgrim colonies were all theocracies under the guidance of John Cotton. They came to escape religious persecution, NOT, REPEAT NOT, theocracy.

And a theocracy is a form of tyranny, given that its authority is oppressive and its power is vested in a single person or at best a small group.

Quote from: Olivianus

I praise them for their actions. They were right and good and their executions (fallible institutions of human government). The laws undergirding their actions were godly laws. The magistrate has obligation to eliminate witches and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers and heretics. Rutherford proves this in Free Disputation. This is not tyranny, this is virtue.

The fact that something is believed virtuous in no way prevents it from being tyrannical. In fact, tyranny based on "virtue" is one of the most horrible things imaginable, because a person who believes their actions are virtuous when they are not can perform truly vile actions and believe them good and just.

Quote from: Olivianus

You have yet to prove he believed in a god.

And you have yet to prove that immorality and nihilism naturally follow from atheism. That was implied by your statement that he was an atheist - that his philosophies naturally followed from his atheism. They did not. Of course, given your incoherent belief that a person is a proposition, I am not surprised you would think this, but your conclusion requires your premise to make any sense at all.

The Bible was written by humans, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that other humans did not change the Bible after the fact to ensure that the prophecies matched the reality. Therefore, this is no proof at all.

Quote from: Olivianus

I just did.

And you failed. Your personal view is still incoherent. Citing prophecies that could easily have been altered after they were supposedly written proves nothing.

Quote from: Olivianus

Luther did attack the jews but that is not proof that he wrote that other book.

But the fact that he attacked the Jews in other tracts makes the likelihood of him writing that tract considerably higher. The only one of Phelps's arguments that was not incoherent and circular was that the views in it did not match his other tracts, yet here we have other tracts which contain the same ideas. Therefore, his conclusion that it was a fraud is suspect.

Quote from: Olivianus

The same thing that ex-priests who were involved in things crimes and couldn't take it anymore: Our school system, and society in general if you are a fellow american, is dominated by Rome and has been for many years. Study jeremiah crowley. Rome loves secularism, because if you are an atheist you are not a protestant and that's the goal. The Elimination of Protestant Christianity. That is what the counter-reformation was all about.

In other words, you use those things as proof that your beliefs about Catholicism are correct, which is exactly what a conspiracy theorist would do - claim that evidence to the contrary actually is evidence in support. This does not fly. You must prove the things you say with actual evidence. Your word alone does not suffice.

When I said that atheists are ignorant of certain portions of history, while at the same time acknowledging these portions of history as being outside of infallible knowledge, I was simply using the term colloquially. All I am getting at is, you guys don't understand the concepts behind these movements.

probably because some of us don't give a crap.

Logged

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

I don't understand why you guys waste your time debating Olivianus. You know he won't change his mind. He believes in God despite proof that said God is nonsense, and believes that his continued belief in the face of that proof is actually a virtue. He has to continually redefine the entire world to conform to that nonsense, destroying his senses of logic and reality in the process.

I praise them for their actions. They were right and good and their executions (fallible institutions of human government). The laws undergirding their actions were godly laws. The magistrate has obligation to eliminate witches and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers and heretics. Rutherford proves this in Free Disputation. This is not tyranny, this is virtue.

Actually, Olivianus isn't insane. That's one of those labels that gets thrown about too often as it is. What he is, is delusional. But his delusions are not much more irrational than the typical conspiracy theorist, and they're outwardly plausible until you look at the details. So that's what I was doing, looking at the details and questioning him on them. As a result, it's obvious for anyone to see just how ridiculous his ideas are, once you get past the outward seeming of logic and reason.

His methods resemble those of a group of trolls that are the reason I gravitated towards this forum and away from Live Journal; particularly one, Vox Dibolica.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Just because non-revealed history is not infallible does not mean I cannot produce a fallible theory of history. Revelation gives me an infallible method of interpretation and tells me what "facts" to chose when constructing my historiography. As I pointed out in my videos I hold a Protestant christian historiography. That is, if you want to follow what is really going on in the world you need to follow the power structure around the Roman catholic papacy. The event itself is not infallible but what is infallible gives me the SIGNIFICANCE of the event.

Until you can provide me a historiography that can interpret every century of human history (IMO the last 6500 years or so) you're just complaining in vain.

this is just priceless. It's magical revelation that says that Oliv is the only one who knows the "real story". ooooh, I'm soooo impressed.

Ah, but you have to remember, according to him, acting in accordance to godly laws is a virtue, and a theocracy isn't a tyranny once everyone left worships the same religion and doesn't question the dictates of the so-wise leaders. All we have to do is believe like he does, and it'll all make sense.

I'm reminded of a short story I read about an alien race which came to Earth promising brotherhood, fellowship, eternal youth and health, and just asked that humans be open-minded and accept their gifts. The ones who believed these promises all died of a tailored genetic disease which was part of the "eternal youth and health" treatments. The ones who were suspicious were the ones who survived.

I notice you left out the part where it clearly says that what is physically in the cup is wine. Only a brain slave like an atheist or roman catholic would not see he is saying that the wine represents his blood which represents his life.

None of this stuff goes on in protestant Churches or eastern churches for that matter. Now the self flagellation thing is an aspect of anchorism that was a key doctrine that the protestant reformation removed.

Since when were baptists, pentecostals and wacky charismatics not protestant? They are HUGE on speaking in tongues. In fact, the catholics, whom you seem to sneer at, don't do that. That is something specific to protestants. Snake handling and being slain in the spirit too. Protestants are just as kooky as any of them. Or are they the wrong kind of protestants? Not True Protestants?

Wow! I just got done reading through most of the thread...all I can say is that this guy Olivianus ranks atop the delusional theists to ever come to the forum in my memory. That is of course in my humble opinion.

Wow! I just got done reading through most of the thread...all I can say is that this guy Olivianus ranks atop the delusional theists to ever come to the forum in my memory. That is of course in my humble opinion.

I wouldn't say that, we've got some major bottom dwellers, his brand of BS is actually a lot more sophisticated that the usual cretins. However, when you realize it is simply Underwear Gnome Theology, it become a lot easier to follow:

Step One: Try to find a phenomenon or paradigm that science is a little unclear on, or cannot sufficiently explain

Step two: Meh.(shug)

Step three: Declare Atheism is wrong and the god of Christendom exists.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

^^^Well, you do have approximately double the posts I do, so you have a little more experience with the idiocy. I'll defer to your opinion (and obviously the other far more senior members than I) in this case; but this guy is out there.